Com. v. Wilson, L. (concurring memorandum)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

J-S25021-14 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee v. LESTER LEON WILSON Appellant No. 1132 MDA 2013 Appeal from the Order June 7, 2013 In the Court of Common Pleas of Juniata County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-34-CR-0000104-2010 BEFORE: OTT, J., STABILE, J., and MUSMANNO, J. CONCURRING MEMORANDUM BY OTT, J.: FILED FEBRUARY 11, 2016 I agree with the majority that Wilson is not entitled to relief in this matter. I write in concurrence to note that, in addition, I believe the trial court improperly questioned the witness, B.W., an 11-year-old girl, regarding her competency to testify and her understanding of the meaning of the witness oath, in front of the jury. See Commonwealth v. Washington, 722 A.2d 643 (Pa. 1998) (per se rule against conducting competency colloquy of a child in front of the jury). However, the certified record demonstrates that the error was harmless in that the trial court never vouched for nor endorsed any Commonwealth v. Hutchinson, aspect 25 of A.3d B.W.’s testimony. 277, 294-95 (Pa. See 2011) (harmless error in conducting colloquy before the jury where the trial court did not vouch for or endorse child’s testimony). J-S25021-14 Judges Stabile and Musmanno join the concurring memorandum. -2-

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.